LAND TRANSPORT AUTHORITY OF SINGAPORE BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

The Minister for Communications (Mr Mah Bow Tan): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Sir, in March this year, during the Budget debate, I explained to this House that, in order to support economic growth, we need an efficient transport system that can allow both people and goods to move freely. Strong growth over the years has enabled many Singaporeans to own cars and many more to desire to own one. Most people accept that this desire must be tempered by the reality that ours is a small country, with limited land which has many competing uses. The challenge facing us is how we can meet the rising expectations of Singaporeans for better mobility, given these constraints and in a way which can be sustained in the long run. In my statement, I spelt out a series of measures that the Government would take to meet this challenge, including extending the range of public transport services, upgrading their quality of service, and managing private vehicle usage to sustain a higher vehicle population. To coordinate all these efforts, I announced that the Government would set up a new statutory board. The Bill before the House today is to establish the legislative framework for this new board which will be called the Land Transport Authority.

The Land Transport Authority, or LTA for short, will integrate the functions of planning, development, implementation and management of all public and private transport infrastructure and policies. Hitherto, these functions have been carried out by different agencies such as the Ministry of Communications, Ministry of National Development, ROV, MRTC, URA and PWD. There is a need for greater coordination between planning for private and public transport infrastructure, formulation of vehicle restraint policies, as well as evaluation of trade-offs between alternative infrastructure and policy options. A single integrated agency, given the mission and the responsibility of meeting the nation's needs, will be better able to undertake these functions. LTA will be able to ensure that transport projects and measures undertaken complement each other in the most effective and cost efficient manner. This in turn will help us achieve an optimal national transport system, holistically designed, as one total system, providing better service to commuters and value-for-money for the nation.

The LTA will be formed by merging the present Roads and Transportation Division of PWD, the Registry of Vehicles, the Land Transport Division of the Ministry of Communications and the Mass Rapid Transit Corporation. Earlier, I had announced that the MRTC would be merged with the LTA within two years. I have decided to merge MRTC with the LTA when it is formed rather than later. This is to allow the new organisation to settle down to work as quickly as possible without being distracted by further changes down the road. We are targeting to establish the LTA on 1st September 1995.

To constitute the LTA, we need to enact three Bills - the Land Transport Authority of Singapore Bill, the Rapid Transit Systems Bill and the Street Works Bill. All three Bills are now before the House.

Currently, the entities forming LTA administer their respective Acts and subsidiary legislation. The Road Transportation Division of PWD administers the Local Government Integration Act, the rules in the Planning Act dealing with provision of car parks as well as the Parking Places Act. ROV administers part of the Road Traffic Act while MRTC administers the Mass Rapid Transit Corporation Act. As the Local Government Integration Act is outdated, it has been reviewed and is now being replaced by a new Street Works Act to be administered by LTA. MRTC will be merged with LTA by repealing the MRTC Act and replacing it with a new Rapid Transit Systems Act. Rather than subsume the legislation administered by the different entities into a large and complicated legislation, we have decided to enact the LTA Act as the umbrella Act empowering the statutory board to administer the various legislation.

Sir, I now move on to the key aspects of the Bill. LTA's Board of Directors will have not more than 15 members, including the Chairman. The Minister may appoint a Deputy Chairman, and the Chairman can also appoint any member of the Board as Acting Chairman to cover his duties when he is away. The Board will seek the Minister's approval for the appointment of the Chief Executive of LTA. The Minister will consult the Public Service Commission before granting his approval.

The key functions of LTA are to plan, construct, manage and maintain the various components of the land transport system, including roads, MRT, LRT and other transit systems and commuter facilities. LTA will also implement, operate and maintain traffic management and control systems to optimise use of our roads. It will advise the Government on the land transport system including the fees and taxes to be levied for the efficient functioning of the system. LTA will take over all existing functions and powers of ROV, RTD and MRTC, including their licensing and regulatory roles. These functions and powers will continue to be governed by the Road Traffic Act, Street Works Act, Planning Act, Parking Places Act and Rapid Transit Systems Act, but under the ambit of LTA. LTA will also have powers, inter alia, to form and participate in any joint ventures and set up subsidiaries. It will be empowered to collect fees and charges for services rendered to external parties, and it will have powers to make legislation governing its operations, with the approval of the Minister.

With regard to how the LTA will be financed, Government will continue to fund the construction of all public and private land transport infrastructure projects. LTA may, with the approval of the Ministry of Finance, also raise money through borrowings to finance these projects. However, the repayment of instalments and interest will be met by Government.

To fund its own operations and programmes, LTA will be allowed to retain certain revenue streams which are listed in the Second Schedule of the Bill. These comprise mainly the vehicle registration fees, administrative fees and composition fines. LTA will continue to collect fees like ARF, COE premium, ALS and RPS fees, and VEP fees on behalf of Government. In return for these services, LTA will be given a management fee by the Ministry of Finance. The revenue streams and management fee will be just enough for LTA to finance all aspects linked to the planning, maintenance and management of the land transport system. LTA's annual surplus is expected to be modest, in the region of $5-$10 million. This will allow LTA to meet any unexpected contingency or fund very minor development projects such as improvements to walkways and commuter facilities. In addition, LTA will only be allowed to invest its funds in accordance with the provisions of the Trustees Act, but may seek the Minister's approval for investment in other instruments.

Currently, the MRTC Act provides for a Compensation Board to assess claims by members of the public for damages to their property arising from construction work carried out by the MRTC. The Compensation Board will now be provided for in the LTA Act and its role expanded to include claims arising from tunnelling works for the construction of road tunnels, eg, the Underground Road System which will be carried out under the Street Works Act. Procedures for the assessment and award of compensation and the proceedings of the Board are basically the same as those which are currently laid down under the MRTC Act.

Provisions have been made in the Bill for assets, interests, rights, privileges, liabilities and obligations of ROV, RTD and the Land Transport Division of MINCOM to be transferred to LTA. Government will continue to retain ownership of infrastructure assets like roads and bridges, while the LTA will keep and manage the operating assets such as traffic lights. Staff working in the various agencies will be transferred at terms no less favourable than those they are currently enjoying. The pension rights of existing pensionable officers will be preserved.

LTA will need to have an enforcement unit of sufficient size and given sufficient powers to enforce its rules and regulations. Currently, ROV relies on seconded police officers to carry out its enforcement functions. It is not feasible for the LTA to establish its own auxiliary police force, and we will continue with the present practice of seconding police officers to LTA for as long as possible. However, provisions have been included for the Authority to establish its own enforcement unit should the need arise in future.

The Bill also contains provisions for consequential amendments to be made to the Road Traffic Act, Parking Places Act and section 30(2)(e) of the Planning Act to bring them under the ambit of the LTA Act. With the Parking Places Act brought under its ambit, the LTA will be the authority to license and/or to regulate the provisions of car parks as part of its overall land transport programme. The LTA, in consultation with the Minister, will set the charges for car parks used for public parking, including HDB season car park rates. URA and HDB will continue to provide and manage public car parks under their charge.

Sir, the formation of the LTA is a significant milestone in the Government's efforts to keep Singapore and Singaporeans on the move in a way that recognises the rising expectations of our people. With better mobility, we enhance our economic efficiency and we sustain growth. At the same time, we improve our quality of life. This, in a nutshell, is LTA's mission. The Bill before the House sets out the legislative framework for the LTA to carry out its mission. With the support and understanding of all Singaporeans, I am confident that we will be able to rise to the challenge and give ourselves the best transport system that we deserve.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Dr Wang Kai Yuen (Bukit Timah): Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill would merge four existing departments, viz, MINCOM'S Land Transport Division, PWD's Road and Transportation Department, ROV and MRTC into one single entity. As the Minister put it in his speech, the vision is for the Land Transport Authority (LTA) to plan and develop infrastructure for land transport of Singapore as a total system. For new satellite towns and commercial developments, for instance, this will be done as an integral part of town planning together with HDB and URA. In other words, transportation is built into the system even before the housing units are constructed. The objective is to move people around using various modes of public transportation as seamlessly as possible. Roads and LRT/MRT tracks will be designed to serve people in a more user friendly manner. Intermodal transfer between bus and train will be seamless and a great improvement over the situation today. For instance, one could visualise stepping off a train, and stepping right onto a bus across the platform or vice versa.

It will be a complete departure from the conventional view of building land transport infrastructure as captured in the Chinese proverb: ( ), which means that the road exists because people walk there. In the conventional method, a road is built if there is enough traffic. An MRT line is constructed if there are enough passengers to justify its viability. Transportation infrastructure, in the conventional approach, is an after-thought.

Sir, the new approach, to borrow a term from the business arena, is a paradigm shift. I dare say that this is an innovation in legislation, probably never attempted elsewhere in the world. This demonstrates the calibre of our Cabinet and, in particular, the vision of the Minister.

Furthermore, this legislation calls for the merger of four Government departments from two Ministries with their own well-defined turfs. In other countries, inter-Ministry rivalry and civil servants' instinctive protection of their turf would have killed the Bill. I am glad that in Singapore, we have civil servants who are prepared to forgo departmental interests for the greater interest of the nation. I think this House should acknowledge these civil servants for their selfless dedication in supporting this Bill.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as it is currently constituted, the LTA will keep only a small portion of the revenue to maintain its operation but the larger amount of revenue collected such as road taxes, COE quota premium and in future usage fees, such as Electronic Road Pricing, will continue to be transferred to the Consolidated Fund. As the Minister said, to fund other infrastructure development, we might have to borrow money in the open market. This, to me, is still reflective of the old mentality in the operation of the land transport system. To me, Sir, the paradigm shift I mentioned earlier is incomplete.

What are the problems of the existing approach? There are many. The key one is that each sector of the land transport system is considered distinct and separate from the rest. In other words, private vehicles are considered private vehicles. Public transportation is public transportation. They are managed separately even though they share the same infrastructure.

How do we address the problem of too many vehicles on the road? The COE system is introduced to control the number. Motorists pay large amounts of money for the right to register their vehicles. What has happened to the money they pay? They are transferred to the Consolidated Fund. In effect, it becomes a new source of tax revenue when it was not meant to be. Worse still, under the provision of the Elected President, which is meant to safeguard our reserve, the COE money ultimately becomes part of the reserve, especially after the current term of the Government when Parliament is dissolved. It gets locked away and becomes unavailable, even to the same Prime Minister in the new Government to tap for land transportation system improvements. This can be problematic, Sir, since land transportation solution such as MRT lines and LRT lines would typically take more than five years to plan and build.

From the private vehicle owner's point of view, acquiring a COE today becomes an exercise of his ability to bump another fellow Singaporean off the car ownership queue. Is the money he contributed used to relieve the constant pressure of ever-rising COE prices in future? No, Sir. When the person goes back to the COE market a few years down the road, he has still to go through the same treadmill. He does not see his COE money being used to provide relief to car ownership.

Another problem of sectorisation is the justification of new bus routes, MRT lines and LRT lines. For instance, before a new MRT line is built, such as the North-East line, its viability is analyzed and considered on its own in isolation to the rest of the MRT system. On the other hand, Sir, bus companies are supposed to average the revenue from all money-making as well as money-losing routes to meet their social obligations to the commuting public. So that leaves one to wonder why different principles are applied to different sectors. Why is the North-East line considered in isolation and not as part of the total MRT system? If we apply the same principle to the MRT as we apply to the bus companies, the question we should ask is whether the SMRT will remain profitable in operating the whole system including the North-East line?

Mr Speaker, Sir, in operating the land transportation system, the Government is adopting an approach of piecemeal optimisation in the belief that the summation of all these piecemeal optimal solutions would result in a globally optimal solution. Sir, I would surmise that this might not be true.

The LTAS Bill provides us with a good opportunity today to address this problem of sectorisation. We should consider the operation as well as the planning of the land transportation system as a total system. We should allow the paradigm shift, I mentioned earlier, initiated by this Bill to go all the way.

What do I mean by that? I suggest that we do not look at private vehicles and public transportation as separate and unrelated modes of moving people around. Instead, they are actually alternatives people choose based on their own preference of balancing cost versus convenience. Sir, I surmise that this is a very different approach. In this case, the land transportation system would be viewed as a total system. As long as the whole system is viable, it should be acceptable if part of the system makes money and the other part loses money. Of course, we must ensure that in subsidising one sector against the other, we would not encourage dependency and unbridled consumption. Therefore, if we look at the system as a whole, it is viable or feasible to use COE money to improve the public transportation system such as building new MRT lines and LRT lines. I am also sure that all car owners would be quite happy to see their money being used this way to relieve the pressure of future COE price increases.

Hence, I would advocate that Government allows the LTA to function much like the other statutory bodies in the Ministry of Communications, such as the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore (CAAS) and the Port of Singapore Authority (PSA) in keeping more of the revenue in the land transportation system within the Authority. In the case of CAAS and the PSA, these organisations have used their resources wisely to improve their infrastructure to the benefit of Singapore. Today, we have the best airport and the best port in the world. They have also used the resources to plan for the future without having to justify every project on its own viability. For instance, when PSA proceeds with its plan to construct the new container port, it utilises more than $7 billion from its cash reserve. If we were to apply the same principle to PSA and ask it to justify the new container port on its own viability, it is possible that the new container port would be deferred for several years.

Perhaps it is easy to rationalise the operation of the airport and the port as the CAAS and PSA manage crucial entry points into Singapore by air and by sea. The efficiency of the management of these is also important to the economic development of Singapore. They are also centralised at certain locations.

It is perhaps less easy to visualise land transportation in the same manner. For one thing, the resources of land transportation are distributed throughout Singapore. For another, land transport serves mainly Singaporeans in their daily commute. However, Sir, if one takes a helicopter view, one can visualise the distributed network of roads and railroads in exactly the same manner as the airport and the port. Furthermore, as the Minister has just said, the Government has always justified the measure to keep our roads free flowing on the economic ground that it is an important infrastructure in Singapore. So I would suggest that the visualization I propose is only one additional small step forward.

Sir, I believe we should set up the LTA in the same mode as CAAS and the PSA, to plan, build and operate the land transportation system. We should give it the mandate and enough resources to build the land transportation system of tomorrow.

As land transportation touches the life of every Singaporean every day, this Bill is likely to be one of the most important Bills introduced in this House. I support the Bill. I am proud that we have a visionary in the Minister. I am also proud that our civil servants are prepared to give up their own turf for greater interests. I would only urge the Minister to take the logical step to allow th e new Land Transport Authority of Singapore to manage our land transportation system as a crucial resource for the nation, much like the CAAS and PAS. I am confident that given this mandate, we will have, in the not so distant future, the best land transportation system in the world.

Dr Arthur Beng Kian Lam (Bedok GRC): Mr Speaker, Sir, the setting up of the LTA is welcomed and timely. At this stage of our economic development, when Singapore is being developed as a business hub for the region, we cannot afford an inefficient land transportation system that would paralyse us.

This Bill unifies four very important bodies managing different areas of land transportation. As has been mentioned by Dr Wang Kai Yuen, the fact that this is possible today is testimony to the political will and vision of our civil servants and the Minister to make land transport the new challenge for us.

Sir, the challenge to the LTA is indeed great. I am sure that the officials in the LTA will rise to the occasion. They will be vested with powers under this Bill to do their job. They face a unique challenge and I believe that today there is no equivalent of the LTA that exists in any part of the world. Indeed, in the words of the Minister, he says that it is a single agency to meet one nation's needs. They will be a pioneering group and, to be sure, their performance will be watched not only by all Singaporeans closely, but by the world transportation community.

Sir, this Bill already spells out in quite explicit detail the formation and duties of the Authority. In 1991, the United States Congress, realising that the building of the Interstate Highway alone (ie, roads) was not going to solve their land transport problems, passed a major piece of legislation called the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act. The legislation authorised US$155 billion for transportation investment during a six-year period, an increase of 25% over past trends. This was indeed a paradigm shift in transport policy supported with Government funds that made it possible. I support what Dr Wang has said that the Land Transport Authority requires more funds to be able to carry out its mission successfully.

Sir, the new transport policy in the US is characterised by the following, and I mention this because I think there is much that we can learn from this.

(1) Emphasis on a systems approach, in particular on alternative modes, environmental protection and mobility of persons and goods.

(2) A holistic approach to planning, as has been mentioned by the Minister, which expands the concept of system performance to include mobility and access, equity, reliability and external impacts, and which stipulates cooperative planning by local and state government. While in the US they talk of local and state government, here we can talk in terms of the involvement of Town Councils.

(3) Emphasis on flexibility in allocating money among modes (roads, transit, bicycles and pedestrians), so making funding decisions clearly a part of the planning process. I hope that this would be done soon by our Land Transport Authority so that we can know how much funds we require to be able to achieve integration.

(4) Linking to air quality and environment in both funding and planning. The haze of last year is still fresh in our minds.

(5) Emphasis on performance with a focus on preserving, maintaining and managing the existing system through management systems.

(6) Emphasis on aesthetics with both planning requirements and funding set aside for scenic by-ways and easements, history preservation and other features.

(7) Emphasis on safety on the roads and in community for both users and non-users,

(8) Emphasis on public involvement, moving the nation towards a participatory model of decision-making in which an informed citizenry plays a key role.

I am sure that the LTA has all these eight points, and maybe even more on their agenda. I for one know that the Minister has item (8), emphasis on public involvement, high on his agenda having accompanied him in his study of the Light Rail System in Europe. Sir, like the Americans in 1991, we today make this paradigm shift in land transportation management. Let me give some examples of areas which I feel that the LTA should immediately focus on.

Firstly, integration of our existing systems: bus, rail, taxis and cars. We need to quickly take decisions on how to use the light rail or other people-mover-systems to harmonise our existing systems. We need to make inter-modal transport more user friendly. In this context, flexibility must be achieved by the LTA by persuading all operators to work more closely together. As has been mentioned by my colleague, Dr Wang, the total cost would be taken as one total land transport system.

Advanced integrated transportation for new towns. We should move away. Let us dare to make this paradigm shift from our present thinking of waiting for the road system to be less than efficient before putting an alternative rail system in place. Let us dare to do this. We should not think of transportation as road or rail, but road and rail right from the planning stage. Here is where the issue of new methods of funding then becomes relevant. In this respect, I urge the Minister to move on with the North-East line immediately.

What about the old towns? This is most worrying. This is admittedly the most tricky and difficult problem. Can the LTA be involved with the Main Upgrading Programme and the Interim Upgrading Programme of the HDB and Town Councils to advise on this problem? The old towns must not be left out in this reorganisation of land transport.

Public involvement. Very much more needs to be done in this area. Close liaison should be established with the CCCs and Town Councils.

Sir, all studies show that transportation planners are often "swimming up stream" in trying to convince commuters to give up their cars. To quote a Japanese transportation specialist Prof. S. Morichii, Professor of Engineering at the Tokyo Institute of Technology:

`When you plot a graph showing the relationship between these two factors (per-capita GDP and car ownership), most Asian cities show a straight line. In other words, as soon as they have money, people in Asian countries want to buy cars.'

This, we know, also applies to developed countries, but maybe not as a straight line relationship.

What then is the answer to this vexing problem of car ownership? The answer lies in providing good alternative public transport together with car restraint measures. One without the other will not be able to reach the goal. Providing Singaporeans with travel choices with a sense of good design, convenience, reliability, safety, comfort, and at an affordable cost - this is the challenge to the LTA.

I support the Bill.

Mr Goh Choon Kang (Braddell Heights): ( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of this Bill.

I hope that with the passage of this Bill and the establishment of the Land Transport Authority (LTA), we will not only be able to improve on the infrastructure of land transport but also enable the whole public transport system to provide a better quality of services.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the establishment of the LTA will have one great advantage, that is, to ensure that we will have an overall and comprehensive planning for the whole land transport system in Singapore. The land transport system covers a very wide range from planning, development, management to operations. At present, these tasks are being handled by six different Government agencies. So in terms of coordination, there are inherent disadvantages. I believe that with the establishment of the Land Transport Authority, the whole land transport system in Singapore will be developed more systematically and rationally so as to ensure that the limited land resources in Singapore will be put to optimal use, especially our road network and the rail network which will then be better linked to the convenience of the commuters.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is my hope that the Land Transport Authority will be able to accomplish the following two tasks and objectives. One, to have optimum use of limited land resources; and two, to improve our public transport services as soon as possible, including the bus services and the MRT services. Singapore is a small island. The land that we have for housing and roads is becoming very scarce. So for long-term planning and requirement, our land transport system should take into consideration the necessity to save land space. To achieve this objective, road development and MRT development should be closely interwoven and linked. They should not be taken separately. We should not only make the best use of the land space available, but also make the best use of the underground space available.

On the North-East line, I would like to look at it this way, that is, the entire North-East line should be built underground. I think this is a far-sighted concept. I will support this concept, although the cost will be much higher. I believe that in the long term, this is worth it. As in other great cities which are densely populated, Singapore should plan its future MRT systems underground rather than above ground, because this is the only way to reserve above-ground space for other development purposes.

Right now, Sir, Serangoon Road and Upper Serangoon Road are the main trunk roads in the north east sector of Singapore. In order to meet the needs of future development and the transport requirements, I think these main trunk roads will have to be expanded. If the North-East MRT line can be properly coordinated with the development of the main trunk roads, that is, to build it under the main trunk roads, then the widening of the roads will not need to be so extensive. In this way, we will not only be able to save the land space above ground, but also help to alleviate any effect on the properties along this line.

The second point is the improvement to the public transport services. I hope that the Land Transport Authority will be able to operate in such a way that they can integrate the bus and the MRT services to ensure that the public can have a better overall public transport system. They will find that with the system in place, the need for owning cars will be less. After the operation of this MRT, we find that the bus companies have already undertaken a very comprehensive adjustment to the bus routes. The impression given to the people is that the bus companies are there to make money and they cut down the less viable routes and services, resulting in great inconvenience to the bus commuters. So if the Land Transport Authority can succeed in this integration, that is, to link together the bus services and the MRT services so as to cut down the waiting time of the commuters and to improve the efficiency of the public transport, I think that will be in keeping with the wishes of the great majority of people in Singapore.

Finally, Sir, I hope that with the establishment of the Land Transport Authority, the North-East MRT line and the road network can be completed as soon as possible without any further delay. In this way, we will not only be able to improve the transport system for this part of the island, but will also help people whose properties are affected. As far as I know, the properties along these roads were zoned by red or yellow lines five or six years ago. As a result, the property owners along these roads are not able to sell their property because there are no takers for fear that they will be affected by road construction. As a result, property owners are in a dilemma. If our road construction work and MRT construction work can be undertaken as soon as possible, I think those property owners affected will be able to have a better picture of where they stand, ie, whether their land or property will be acquired or not.

I hope that the Minister will consider the plight of the people concerned and proceed to build the North-East MRT line and carry out the road development there as soon as possible.

Encik Harun bin A. Ghani (Hong Kah GRC): ( In Malay): Mr Speaker, I rise in support of the Bill. Looking at its objectives, we would find that the Bill is aimed at promoting policies and allocating resources towards achieving a safe and well-administered, maintained and managed land transport system in Singapore.

It also seeks to vest all responsibility for the administration of the land transport system in Singapore in a single body that will coordinate its maintenance and management, in contrast to the present situation where various Government agencies and statutory bodies are involved, like the Registry of Vehicles (ROV), Mass Rapid Transit Corporation (MRTC), Housing and Development Board (HDB), Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) and the Police. A safe and efficient land transport system is important for us to meet future challenges and ensure our further economic and social advancement.

May I ask the Minister to consider the following points. For instance, with regard to clause 7(1)(e), (f), (g) and (h), could the Minister consider whether LTA should be empowered to engage in business. I think this might not be compatible with the Authority's status as a statutory board whose function is to mana ge and maintain the land transport system in Singapore. Even if LTA is to be allowed to do this, the type of business it may engage in must be related to its objectives.

Next, on clause 7(1)(n), as LTA will be having its own source of revenue through the collection of fees, I feel it should not be receiving donations as well for its operations. Collecting donations is more appropriate for a non-profit social or charitable organisation.

As regards clause 22(1), the period for making claims, may I ask the Minister to reconsider this. Under this clause, those who suffer damage or loss as a result of the functions of LTA are entitled to claim compensation. Under the Fourth Schedule, Part I of the Bill, the period for making such a claim varies from one to six years. Firstly, these different periods are confusing. It is more equitable to fix a single time limit, say, three years for all claims. Secondly, although the Board of Compensation has the discretion to allow an extension, this applies only in the case of a mistake of fact or of law and if the Authority is not prejudiced by the delay. The Board's discretion is thus restricted. This should not be the case; the Board ought to be given full discretion to allow an extension.

On clause 23(1), the procedure for claims might be too technical and complex for the layman to follow. The layman might be prevented from obtaining a fair compensation if he fails to follow the procedure. Thus the procedure should be simplified for the benefit of the public.

On clause 25(3), the power given to the Board of Compensation to penalise a party with costs for not settling a claim earlier, leading to an award which is lower than the offer by LTA, is unfair to the claimant. A party may be forced to accept an offer he deems unsatisfactory for fear of being penalised with the cost of the proceedings. To allay this fear, the Board of Compensation should be given the discretion to determine the cost it deems appropriate and reasonable, "unless for special reasons the Board thinks it not proper to do so".

Under clause 26(10), a professional valuer cannot represent a claimant in a matter and be paid for his professional services, unless the valuer is treated as an agent appointed by the claimant under clause 26(10)(c), and he will not be paid as a professional.

Finally, Mr Speaker, under clause 31(2), the power of review of the High Court does not extend beyond the decision on the quantum of compensation awarded by the Board of Compensation. If a case before the High Court cannot be considered in accordance with the law concerning such a decision, it means that the aggrieved party has no recourse for appeal if he truly believes that there had been no consistency in the compensation awarded.

Subject to these qualifications, I support the Land Transport Authority of Singapore Bill.

Mr Speaker: Order. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 3.00 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 2.35 pm until 3.00 pm Sitting resumed at 3.00 pm